The fall of Cameron-Clinton, and the rise of Brexit-Trump

You’ve got two arms of the main-stream media (MSM) the right and the supposedly centre-left. The right arm gets people fired-up with a mixed message of overt racism (typically anti-immigrant) and jingoistic nonsense, with anti-establishment narratives thrown in as sweeteners (typically anti-EU). The left arm then points out the despicable nature of the former (‘the racists’) denies any anti-establishment content and presents the status-quo/free-market-capitalism as the only alternative, championing the freedom of movement and identity. So, they get an opposing group of people fired-up about the idea of opposing hard borders and restrictions on travel and marrying whoever you want to.

Divide and Rule

They thus divide the vast majority of the population, who have an interest in fundamentally reforming society, into two conflicting groups, both of which they control to a large extent through the two arms of the MSM; one through racist threats (‘they’ are taking all our welfare and jobs, ‘they’ are going to impose sharia law) and the other through the threat of racists (surely, we are better than these far-right lunatics? They are the only alternative to us).

So, society continues to get more and more unequal, and more and more people at the bottom are more and more desperate, whilst increasingly few ridiculously rich people keep mercilessly plugging this idea that’s its immigrants fault on the one hand, and the EU on the other, or that whatever we have is better than the mess we would be in if ‘the racists’ had their way, epitomised by Brexit.

What are the parallels with the US situation?

The UK and the US:

Both enjoyed a golden era of increasing equality from the end of the second world war until at least the late 70s, then a ‘renewed triumphalism’ with the end of the cold war.

Both have been dealing with a distinct lack of legitimacy from the 2003 invasion of Iraq through to the destruction of Libya; all these wars and military spending more broadly have been backed by both parties but have been unpopular with the electorate. In fact it was necessary to lie and to break international law in order to wage them.

Both have been champions of the neo-liberal agenda for many decades, and austerity since the 2008 financial crisis.

Brexit is an all-encompassing issue which has no equal in the US, but if we take a broader look at what’s playing out in the UK surrounding Brexit over the same time period as the rise of Trump a number of commonalities are apparent:

In the UK:

(A) Brexit wasn’t meant to happen, and certainly not its implementation by a minority government plus the DUP, and (B) now the Tory Party (the Party of the elite) is weak and turned in on itself about what Brexit means in theory, in practice, in law, in costs, causing (C) a chaotic and confusing situation. (D) Reactionary reforms are being carried out in the meantime, at a rapid pace.

(E) Corbyn wasn’t meant to be there and Remain may have won it with the complicity of a the labour leadership. Furthermore, even if they hadn’t, the Tories may well have improved their majority in the 2017 general election and thus be able to get on with a Brexit of their choosing instead of farce we are currently witnessing.

In the US:

(A) Trump wasn’t meant to be there as a candidate nor as President, and as a result (B) there is now a vicious conflict amongst the higher echelons of the US, (C) even as reactionary reforms are being carried out even faster than before. (D) That translates in practice to a lot of chaos and confusion.

(E) Sanders wasn’t meant to be there either and its plausible that Clinton could have won the Presidency without the damaging narrative of her stealing the primaries and crushing the possibility of change within the Democratic Party.

So, in both the UK and the US:

Democratic event pitched side A against side B, where side A was the status quo and side B promised various changes. The level of debate was an all-time low.

Event/politician(s) C happened, unexpectedly, bringing in issues not previously part of the publicly consumed political discourse.

A ended up losing narrowly to B, thus precipitating open war amongst the ruling establishment and a highly-polarized general-public.

B’s victory over A was arguably due to the loss of the control of the narrative by character(s) C. (The margin was small, and C was significant.)

Subsequently, character(s) C survives various efforts to remove them and thus becomes stronger a) within their Party, b) through increased grassroots support/favourable public opinion and c) by effectively countering / weathering the hostile MSM.

Corbyn fought for a Brexit based on opposition to austerity and worker’s rights. Also, Sanders promised to redistribute wealth and normalised the term ‘socialism’ in the US. Trump ran on an anti-war platform and pledged to ‘drain the swamp’.

Brexit winning meant that Cameron had to step down and combination of Leave and Remain Tories have been pitted against each other over what to do about it. Trump has reneged on most of his promises but has attempted a reconciliation with Russia (on hold until Russia-gate implodes) and hasn’t started any new wars yet. Regardless of why, there are many powerful people determined to remove him.

A) Brexit was largely a right-wing initiative, but it was supported by some sectors of the Left with the ostensible exception of Corbyn who was pro-Remain but not pro-status quo (unlike so many big wigs). When a Tory Brexit went head-to-head with Corbyn’s version of change they lost their majority, and had to go running to the DUP. B) Clinton was forced to tack left by Sanders (and it looked to many like she had to cheat as well) whilst Trump offered a mixture of ‘far-right’ and ‘change’. She might have been able to beat either of these challenges but the combination thwarted her, because she is so obviously the status quo that few want.

Corbyn has survived numerous challenges and emerged stronger each time. He now has decent control over all levels of the Labour Party, whilst he and Labour are riding high in the polls, and the MSM has already given him all their best shots. Trump’s future seems to depend on the collapse of Russia-gate and how FBI-DOJ-DNC-gate plays out in the run-up to the mid-terms. He could well emerge with the GOP and much of the electorate behind him. Meanwhile, his showdown with the MSM rolls on.

The Brexit-Trump Era

Brexit is still happening, as are many reactionary reforms, but May isn’t pulling either off with anything like pinnace. A large part of the reason for that is with Corbyn in charge of the Labour Party, everything is always about the opposition to neo-liberalism/austerity and war-mongering. The other part is that Brexit was always going to be a nightmare. Incredibly, it looks likely that Labour will take power at the next election. However, as long as that looks likely, the Tories will do their utmost to prevent one.

Trump is still there, and although he is doing what he is ‘meant to be doing’ (concentrating wealth in the hands of the very rich) he isn’t pulling it off with anything like the pinnace of Obama, or even Bush. The US is losing allies and soft power at a rapid pace. Sanders is also sniping from the side-lines. It’s possible that Trump may win another term due to the lack of reform of the Democratic Party, and the fallout from the botched coup against him.

Symptoms as well as causes?

Perhaps these similarities are coincidences, or are unimportant. Or perhaps the strain of maintaining the American empire has led both the US and its UK sidekick towards a breaking-point where financial, political and economic crisis are colliding with military defeats abroad and public relations problems at home. Key western alliances are being destroyed by both Brexit and Trump, however it could be that Brexit and Trump are a result of the profit-driven war-mongering actions of these western alliances. Brexit and Trump are undermining US hegemony and speeding up the transition to a multipolar world order, but may also be driven by that process.

A resolution to the UK’s various problems is conceivable: Corbyn as Prime Minster, a ‘Green New-deal’ alongside some federalization of the UK and a relationship with the EU that is based on social democratic priorities. How the US could possibly resolve its multi-faceted crisis is an open question.

The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

Comment

Name:

E-mail:

30 Comments

but because the topic ‘Brexit’ is repeated frequently so i will repeat my statement:

Brexit was intentionally done by the UK/US elites. The Queen supported it
(“vote for it and shut up” was her line). This says it all. Everything else is show –
the pro-Brexiters the pro-Stayers, whatever, all show.

Brexit was for the UK to distance herself from the EU that is destined for dismantlement.
Once Brexit happened, it was quite obvious that Trump will be elected with his “America first”.
The full untold version of that line is “America first, vassals last”. This is why the EU is anti-Trump, because they know Trump is out to get a pound of flesh from them, this is why the EU-apparatchiks are panicking.

And for Theresa May dragging her feet with Brexit, this is to leave enough time to incite other
EU countries to dismantle the union themselves. This is also why we get to read frequent
“heartbreaking” articles citing “Greek should drop the EURO currency or/and leave the EU” etc. All to mold the public opinion to the interests of the AngloZionists.

The Queen, whatever her private views, is ‘above’ politics and as a constitutional monarch must remain apolitical. Even had you heard the words from her own lips (highly doubtful—she has been, if nothing else, a scrupulous constitutional monarch and I’m no fan of hers—a far-left republican by nature) no reputable medium would print them, only a scandal mongering gossip mag would do so— for click bait.

We have plenty of the gossip mags, fun to read but the content should be treated like the comics or fish-wraps that they are in reality.

I think the political concepts left and right — at least in the West where they were coined initially — just amount to utter nonsense today. Interestingly, the attitude towards present-day Russia constitutes a much more clarifying political marker.

If we look at the “mainstream left” and “mainstream right”, what we see are two vaguely competing brands of Western supremacism. More specifically, the mainstream left is promoting imperialist violence on the basis of faggots’ rights and other degenerate identity politics. The mainstream right is similarly constrained, but with Israel and Zionism replacing faggotry/identity politics as the ultimate justification for the same fascist repression. Moreover, the mainstream left and the mainstream right are both fully committed to Russophobia. Russia is undermining the West’s way of sustaining itself at the planet’s expense, and that is outright anathema to what passes for Western political mainstream, for fairly obvious reasons.

Looking outside these mainstream brands of Western supremacism, Russia becomes considerably more appreciated on the right. Given the fact that the Alt-right — mostly pro-Russian or neutral — and the left soup of infantile Anarchism/Trotskyism — fiercely anti-Russian under the catch-all label “anti-authoritarianism” — pretty much make up the rest defining themselves according to the West’s dated left/right scale, there is considerable substance to the claim that, overall, Western Russophobia is strongly prevalent on the left.

You’re correct when pointing out that the labels left or right are getting more and more diffuse nowadays. People on the economical left who dare to advocate for the rights of Palestinians (for example Corbyn) are denounced as anti-semites or outright as right-wingers. Muslim hating folks (called right or alt-right) are speaking extremely favorably about Israel. The most confusing aspect of the latter group is their fondness for Russia with a way higher Muslim population than most Western Countries. Whilst ranting about Mosques in the West, they deliberately forget that a short while ago one of the largest Mosques on the European continent had opened its doors in Moscow. I’m wondering what’s coming next. Maybe Greens advocating for fracking and off-shore drilling in the Arctic?

“The most confusing aspect of the latter group is their fondness for Russia with a way higher Muslim population than most Western Countries.”

That is a correct and also appreciably interesting observation. Suffice it to say that their fondness for Russia should be acknowledging Russia’s stunning success in dealing with Chechnya and Syria. The Wahhabi fanatics bankrolled by the CIA were routed while Russia confirmed the faith of Islam as part of the concept “Mother Russia” by building and opening the Moscow Cathedral Mosque.

By contrast, the Zionazi degenerates ruling the West are beyond redemption and below contempt. Their stooges in the Middle East will beat the dust being seen as corrupt, incompetent, and 100% incompatible with societal progress.

And considering that both the USA presently….. and the UK formerly are/were based on sea power, wherein piracy (as well as Highway Robbery, internally) has played a considerable strategic role….. it is interesting to note that you used the term for a small auxiliary sailing vessel (….http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pinnace …..) more than once, perhaps subconsciously.

“The Pedophile Pirates Plying Pinnaces Pillage and Plunder with Pompous a-Plomb and Pestilential Panache.” might keep the distinction entirely in the conscious mind at all times, as a pneumonic device.

However, the insights of the subconscious are valuable enough to be felt and heeded, as well, and are therefore duly noted and appreciated.

“A resolution to the UK’s various problems is conceivable: Corbyn as Prime Minster, a ‘Green New-deal’ ”
Wasn’t it FDR’s ‘Red New Deal’ that solved the USA’s problems after the Great Financial Crash of the 1930s? Cometh the Hour, cometh the Man. Corbyn came from nowhere — only a few of us were quietly smiling and saying this might be the start of something big, while Main Street was declaring him “unelectable” as though that was a truth carved in stone. Trump is the Man from Nowhere who was meant to fill the shoes of FDR, the way Corbyn is meant to fill the shoes of Attlee. Very big shoes to fill but the time is right, the precariat after a long spell in the wilderness worshipping the Golden Calf are ready for a return to social justice.

Paralysed Precariat of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your fears.

Do you know who is the anti – Zionist coming after Trump that will put his countrymen interests and welfare above Israel’s interests? Above the wealthy corporations financial interests? Above his own interests?
Do you see a light at the end of the Zionist tunnel?
Has Putin been cloned in the US and nobody told me?

” Three more years of agony” you say.
You are a very optimistic fella.

Very good overview of our current situation, Jack J. We live in interesting times indeed.
I broke a 30+ year abstention to vote for Corbyn as party leader, just on the off chance that he would provide some decent opposition to TINA, the boy done good, whatever the outcome.

It is not a good article. It states from the outset that the Brexit/remain divergence in the UK has been manufactured. That is BS. I live in the area with the highest % of ‘leave’. We are doubliny the size of our towns and they are being filled exclusively with migrants. I mean that. Schools 75% non native speakers. Jobs that paid 16.50/hr to me as a student in 1990 are now paying minimum wage £7.0 after a 75% decline in £ purchasing power.

Want me to go on? We left because we are pumping migrants into the country 1 million/year (look at the national stats agency NI number allocation to foreign nationals, their % births to women not born in the UK and the households with a foreign national as head of house.) to occupy house expansion. Why. To keep a bancrupt banking system afloat. Its is QE by the back door.
The article is wrong from the outset because most people in the UK – about 75% know that this is not only a betrayal but also the house building oversupply unwind is going to make Ireland’s overbuild look like a walk in the park.

Yes. Add to that the blatant corruption in Brussels, shoddy empire-building by the jejeune Federica Mogherini and her deeply unpleasant controllers, the intrinsically unrepresentative nature of the EU and the appallingly low standard of EU officers and political leaders, and it makes Remain an option only for the politically illiterate or those with obvious vested interests.

I work in 9 EU member states, live in 3 of them, speak 3 European languages and flew back from the US to vote for Brexit. And I would do it again.

Apologies for the double post, the first unfinished one got a message that it was a double so I went for a possible third. ??

mod-to note: LOL My fault one minion. Its what happens when one logs on and starts this task without doing one’s due diligence. I failed to review previous comments. My apologies are more necessary than yours.

I cannot agree with this article, as it is misleading. First of all, BREXIT was indeed meant to happen. Who created and financed UKIP ? Why was Farage selected to take Britain out of the EU ? Perhaps because in the years past both Labour and the Tories were working to take Britain into the EU ? And who did create the EU ? The Anglo-American bankers, as the EU is based on the US Federation, as both entities have central banks controlled by private bankers. The EU is nothing more than a private empire of private bankers. Once Britain drove France and Germany into the EU, it left, leaving the French and Germans to look after the EU and solve it’s problems, while the Rothschilds in London would still end up controlling the EU Central bank. Somebody being a little bit clever here.

When it comes to Trump, it’s highly debatable if it was intended for him to lose, but rather to win. As a number of people have pointed out, his entire election was a psy ops. He appealed to the working class in the US, ostensibly to confront the elite, yet look at his origins. From his fathers side he is German, yet from his mothers side he is officially Scottish, yet his mother is of Norwegian royal origin, being descended from the Royal House of Rurik. The Bush family, for example, are descended from English aristocrats. All this an accident ? When Trump took over the White House, he retracted every election promise he made. He continued pouring troops in Europe. He sent additional troops to Afghanistan. He attacked Syria without declaration of war, the very same country which is fighting ISIS. He sent the US Navy to the North Korean coast, threatening the country with military intervention. He is also picking a fight with Iran. He introduced some tax breaks which again have mostly benefited the elite. He introduced additional sanctions against Russia and seized Russian diplomatic property. He even threatened European firms with sanctions if they dared build the Nord Stream – 2 gas pipeline. What is the difference between the two Bush presidents, Obama and Trump ? I don’t see any difference. Its business as usual, with Wall Street pulling the strings as far as US foreign and domestic policy goes.

An interesting interpreation of events is that Trump by Sound and Fury overplays the agenda of his neo-con opposition. The exagerated drama unveils the truth, thus stopping these moves before they actually happen.

‘Meant’ does imply that there is one all-powerful actor in charge, which isn’t the case; of course there are individuals and organisations that have different and conflicting interests amongst the ruling class. However, in terms of elite grip on power Brexit was ‘meant’ to exist as an issue, but not in practice. I honestly believe this sums it up superbly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a6HNXtdvVQ. Brexit’s value was as a distraction from the real causes of the growing problems in the UK. Yes, some amongst the ruling elite genuinely sought to leave the EU and make it a tax haven and slash worker’s rights, but now that they lost their majority that looks unlikely to happen, if it was ever possible. The majority of the elite wanted things how they were before: Tory’s in power, no real opposition from Labour and the ability to blame the EU for problems even as they benefit from the free-trade, cheap and skilled migrant labour and various collaborative development projects and exchanges.

As for Trump, whilst he has sections of the elite very much on his side, and mostly capitulated on his populist promises, Clinton was blatantly the establishment’s candidate.

I am afraid there are serious problems with this analysis. Let us examine two key problems with conclusion.

…a ‘Green New-deal’ alongside some federalization of the UK and a relationship with the EU that is based on social democratic priorities…

(1) The numerous fake scares — global cooling — global warming — climate change — and associated “Green” movement is organized by Establishment Globalists for their own enrichment. Most notably Gore, Biden, and Kerry families. Thus, a “Green New Deal” is impossible, as that would interfere with Globalists transferring wealth to themselves.

(2) The EU and associated Euro Zone [EZ] exists for the application of Globalist power.

— Citizens of Greece and Cyprus are still being crushed by EZ austerity.
— The EU is responsible for the flood of migrants displacing citizens.
— The unaccountable European Commission controls all EU legislation.
— The EU tries to punish countries, such as Hungary and Poland, that act to protect their cItizens.

Globalists are fighting very hard to keep the UK in their trap, which is why Brexit is taking so long. Hopefully, the UK will stay in course and escape from EU. The citizens and businesses of the UK should reap huge gains once their wealth is no longer being siphoned off.

1) I think its entirely feasible that the resources currently being made available for war, centralized energy and agricultural systems and nuclear weapons could be redirected to sustainable development, and if Corbyn becomes PM im sure he will attempt it.

2) It will take some doing, but a reform of Europe is possible. If this is post-EU then so be it. Some kind of big change in the way US controls Europe would certainly help.

“You’ve got two arms of the main-stream media (MSM) the right and the supposedly centre-left.”

What insanity is this? There is no right-wing media in the US. The only “right wing” that exists at ALL in the US is the Alt Right, and they are subjected to systematic, institutional censorship and sometimes violence by media, the authorities and the shock-troops of the neo-liberal/neo-con establishment, antifa. The so-called “center-left” media in the US is the establishment and it is ENTIRELY left-wing on social issues: radical cultural marxism is the official ideology of the left-wing (establishment) US media. On economics, they are neo-liberal (another liberal, Jewish ideology on which Republicans and Democrats AGREE ENTIRELY).

Articles like this really do demonstrate that the ideological divide in the US is not bridgable. Leftists and centerists (Trumpism) and rightists (Alt Right) really do inhabit different factual universes and the chances of resolving the conflict peacefully are nil. In the future there will be a violent struggle in the US that will involve stacked corpses and mass graves. The only questions is whether the liberals will be putting the conservatives in the mass graves of vice versa.

Mass graves are coming to America, folks. It is unstoppable at this point. The only questions is, will you be stacking or getting stacked?

As usual, the hideous, stinking, giant elephant in the room is totally absent whenever Brexit and the subjects most closely related to it are being covered on this otherwise highly perceptive forum — a judgment which applies to the published blog posts and the comments on them alike.

Put bluntly: What are the stances with regard to NATO? As long as this organization of permanent war, terror, coercion, mayhem, and utter lawlessness (both external and internal) exists including the UK, Brexit is a rather moot issue. My take is that NATO is simply too important to be up for discussion in “polite society”. Just look a little beyond the ceaseless Russophobic screamfest in Western media of whatever stripe — Cultural Marxist, neoliberal, conservative, or otherwise — to realize that NATO is the absolutely indispensable tool to prop up the West’s “post-industrial society”. It’s already in serious trouble, sure, but dissolution of NATO would be suicidal with ever growing resistance from without.

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.